[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1338286038.26856.20.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 12:07:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
michael@...rulasolutions.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it, nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it,
luca.abeni@...tn.it, dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
insop.song@...csson.com, liming.wang@...driver.com,
jkacur@...hat.com, harald.gustafsson@...csson.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/15] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE v5
On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 11:06 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> o The only "big problem" I fear is related to the current deadline
> inheritance mechanism. As Steven pointed out during the last review,
> a task could force more bandwidth than was allowed if:
>
> - it takes a futex;
> - it is boosted while holding it;
> - never releases the futex;
>
> and this is sadly achievable since, if boosted, a task inherits top
> waiter parameters and the enforcement mechanism is temporarily
> disabled for it.
/me goes read patch 12 in detail..
Wouldn't it be possible to enforce pi_se (aka. pi_task)'s bandwidth in
the dl-boosts-dl case?
Since afaict that's the only case we need to worry about. If you can
spawn FIFO/RR tasks you already loose bandwidth caps etc..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists